There is a lot of talk today about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), a bill which Congress is beginning to debate today.  The goal of the legislation is to put an end to online piracy, the illegal distribution of digital copyrighted works.  Nearly everyone I know in the tech industry has voiced opposition to the bill, and major websites like Wikipedia, Google, and Wired.com have made a strong statement by blacking out parts of their websites for 24 hours.  A lot of claims are flying around about why the bill is unconstitutional and will destroy our First Amendment rights.  I'm sure many of the claims are accurate, but at the same time, it's clear that some people like to exaggerate in order to make their point, and many don't always know the hard facts.  Eventually, the flurry of opinions from various sources overwhelmed me to the point of not knowing who to believe.

So I read the actual text of the bill.  Yup, all 76 pages.  As you'd expect, it was not an easy read, but I got through it, and I think I understand it.  I'm not quite ready to give my own opinion of the bill yet, but in the meantime, I thought I'd at least share a summary of what exactly it says.  This is a long summary, and will take a several minutes to get through all of it.  But at least it's in plain English, and a lot shorter than the full text which, trust me, is painful.  So, here you go ...

H. R. 3261 -- Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

Section 102 (pages 10-24)

Action By Attorney General To Protect U.S. Customers and Prevent U.S. Support of Foreign Infringing Sites.

This section concerns “foreign infringing sites”, which are websites that:

1.  Have a domain name registered through a domain registrar in a foreign country.
2.  Are making an intentional and explicit attempt to provide services or goods to U.S. residents.
3.  Are in violation of existing U.S. copyright and piracy laws.

This section gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to take action against any foreign infringing sites. Such action consists of:

1.  Sending a “cease and desist” notice of the alleged violation to the website owner.
2.  Obtaining a court order which requires that:
   • Within five days of receiving the notice, DNS providers must stop resolving the domain name (so visits to that domain name would cease to work, although visits directly to the IP address would continue to work).
   • Within five days of receiving the notice, search engines must stop serving up links to the foreign infringing website.
   • Within five days of receiving the notice, payment gateways must stop processing payments into the account used by the foreign infringing site.
   • Within five days of receiving the notice, advertising services must stop serving ads for the foreign infringing site.

There are provisions in the law to accommodate those situations when the service provider (DNS, search engine, payment gateway, or advertising service) cannot comply with the court order due to technical or economic reasons.

There are also relief provisions for situations when the foreign website stops infringing, or when it is discovered that they were never infringing in the first place.

Section 103 (pages 24-47)

Market-Based System To Protect U.S. Customers and Prevent U.S. Funding of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property

This section concerns websites, foreign or domestic, that are dedicated to theft of U.S. property, AKA “a bad website”. To qualify for this distinction:

1. The website must be targeted at, intended for, or used by, U.S. residents.
2. The website is primarily designed for the purpose of doing “bad stuff” (see below), or the operator of the site has deliberately avoided any measures to prevent “bad stuff”, or the operator of the site has taken clear steps to foster or promote “bad stuff”.
3. The term “bad stuff”, as used in the previous point, constitutes offering goods or services in a way that is in violation of U.S. copyright law, or trafficking in counterfeit goods (e.g., drugs bearing the logo and name of a U.S. company, but actually made by a counterfeiter).

In the case of a bad website, the plaintiff is the holder of the intellectual property right that is being stolen or harmed.

This section gives the plaintiff the authority to take action against any bad website. Such action consists of:

1. Sending a written notice to any payment gateways or advertising services that are supporting the bad website. The notice must contain specific facts to support the claim that the website is a bad website, and must also demonstrate damage or loss to the plaintiff.
2. The recipients of the notice (the payment gateways and advertising services) are then responsible for delivering the notice to the owner of the bad website.
3. The owner of the allegedly bad website may then respond with a written counter notice that states, in good faith, that the website is actually not a bad website.
4. If a counter notice is not received from the owner of the bad website, then within five days of receiving the original notice from the plaintiff, the payment gateway must stop processing payments into the account used by the bad website.
5. If a counter notice is not received from the owner of the bad website, then within five days of receiving the notice, advertising services must stop serving ads for the bad website.

If the above actions do not yield any results for the plaintiff (that is, the bad website continues to operate and be supported by the payment gateways and advertising services), then the plaintiff can take further action against the owner of the bad website. This action consists of:

1. Sending a “cease and desist” notice to the owner of the bad website or domain name.
2. Obtaining a court order which requires that:
   •  Within five days of receiving the notice, payment gateways must stop processing payments into the account used by the bad website, or otherwise face fines.
   • Within five days of receiving the notice, ad providers must stop serving ads for the bad website, or otherwise face fines.

There are provisions in the law to accommodate those situations when the service provider (payment gateway, or advertising service) cannot comply with the court order due to technical or economic reasons.

There are also relief provisions for situations when the bad website stops doing bad stuff, or when it is discovered that they were never doing bad stuff in the first place.

Section 104 (pages 47-48)

Immunity For Taking Voluntary Action Against Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property

This section says that no legal action can be taken against any DNS provider, search engine, payment gateway, or advertising service for doing any of the things described in the previous sections – namely ceasing to provide service to the foreign infringing websites (Section 102) or bad websites (Section 103).

Section 105 (pages 48-50)

Immunity For Taking Voluntary Action Against Sites That Endanger Public Health

This section concerns websites that are endangering the public health. This means that the website is primarily designed for the purpose of selling prescription medication to customers without a valid prescription, or selling prescription medication that is misbranded or adulterated.

This section says that no legal action can be taken against any DNS provider, search engine, payment gateway, or advertising service for ceasing to provide service to a website that endangers the public health.

Section 106 (pages 50-51)

Guidelines and Study

This section states that the Attorney General shall:

1. Provide resources to help with managing all the new lawsuits that will come as a result of this law.
2. Develop a process to coordinate enforcement activities related to this law.
3. Publish procedures to receive information from the public relevant to the enforcement of this law.
4. Provide guidance to intellectual property right owners about what information they need to provide in order to take action.

Also, the Register of Copyrights shall conduct a study on the enforcement and effectiveness of this law, and any need to amend this law based on emerging technologies. Two years after the law goes into effect, they must report to Congress on the results and recommendations of their study.

Section 107 (pages 51-53)

Denying U.S. Capital to Notorious Foreign Infringers

Six months after the enactment of this law, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall provide a report to Congress that includes:

1. An analysis of notorious foreign infringers, their violations, and harm they have inflicted on U.S. consumers and businesses.
2. An examination of whether foreign infringers have attempted to access U.S. capital in the form of investment funding or public offerings.
3. An analysis of whether we can successfully rely on foreign governments to police foreign infringers.
4. Recommendations for new policies that will deter foreign infringers from violating our copyright and piracy laws, and encourage them to adopt practices that protect intellectual property. This should include the consideration of laws that might prevent foreign infringers from raising capital in the U.S.

Section 201 (pages 54-59)

Streaming of Copyrighted Works In Violation of Criminal Law

This section amends previous copyright law in the following ways:

Section 202 (pages 60-66)

Trafficking in Inherently Dangerous Goods or Services

This section amends previous criminal law in the following ways:

Section 203 (pages 66-67)

Protecting U.S. Businesses from Foreign And Economic Espionage

This section increases the penalties for engaging in economic espionage (providing trade secrets to foreign governments).

Section 204 (pages 67-70)

Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines

This section states that six months after the enactment of this law, the United States Sentencing Commission should review and amend federal sentencing guidelines surrounding the various offenses described in this law. This includes intellectual property offenses, economic espionage offenses, and more.

Section 205 (pages 70-76)

Defending Intellectual Property Rights Abroad

This section states that we will dedicate resources to work directly with foreign countries to ensure that our intellectual property is protected in those countries. This includes supporting their enforcement actions and changing their laws in favor of protecting intellectual property. A specific person (“intellectual proeprty attache”) will be assigned to each of the following regions: Africa, Europe/Eurasia, East Asia, The Near East, South/Central Asia, and Western Hemisphere. The job of this person is to advance the policy goals and priorities of the U.S. Government as it relates to protection of intellectual property. In each region, priority will be given to those countries where the potential economic benefit is greatest.